The State appealed an order suppressing Mario Flores-Gallegos’s intoxilyzer results after a traffic stop. The trial court found that he had not given actual, knowing, and voluntary consent to the breath test. The Court of Appeals held that Georgia law requires actual consent that is freely and voluntarily given, but does not require the State to prove “knowing consent” as a separate element. The trial court considered the totality of the circumstances but applied the wrong legal standard when it treated knowing consent as necessary. Because the error affected the suppression ruling, the appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for the trial court to reconsider Flores-Gallegos’s motion under the correct standard. The court did not decide whether the breath-test result would ultimately be admitted. Two judges concurred.